The Hon’ble Delhi HC on 15th April 2021, Thursday after observing the viral video wherein the petitioner Shahrukh Pathan was seen pointing a gun at an unarmed Delhi Police personnel during the riots of February 2020 rejected the bail application of Shahrukh Pathan.
The Hon’ble Single Judge Bench while rejecting the bail application filed by the accused also stated that “given the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, the Hon’ble court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.”
In the background, an FIR was registered against the petitioner in the instant case by the Delhi Police for the commission of offences under Sections 147/148/149/186/216/307/353 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC, 1860”) and under Sections 25 and 27 Arms and Ammunition Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Arms Act, 2019”).
Following the incident, the charge sheet in the instant case has already been filed before the Hon’ble trial court. Needful to mention that the Petitioner in the instant case is a resident of northeast Delhi, who was seen pointing his pistol at the policeman on the Jaffrabad-Maujpur road. Subsequently, on 3rd March the petitioner was arrested.
In the due course, the Hon’ble HC while passing the order in the instant case noted that the role attributed to the petitioner was not conned to his participation in the mob of rioters but of “heading a large crowd, holding a pistol in hand and releasing open fire shots”. Additionally, the Hon’ble Court also remarked that “the viral video clipping and pictures played before this Hon’ble Court have shaken the conscience of this Hon’ble Court as to how petitioner could take law and order in his hands. The Hon’ble Court in continuation also stated that whether or not the petitioner had the intention to kill the complainant or any person present in the public with his open-air pistol shots, but it is hard to believe that he did not know that his act may harm anyone present at the spot.
Further observing that the accuracy of the complainant’s version shall be tested at trial, the Hon’ble Court added that it was not Pathan’s case that he was not involved in the alleged incident. The Hon’ble Court thus agreed with the rejection of his bail by the trial court as it stated, “In the opinion of this Hon’ble Court, the learned trial court has rightly held that the petitioner is alleged to have participated in riots and his picture speaks a volume about his involvement.
The petition is accordingly dismissed while refraining to comment upon the merits of the prosecution case.
Case: Shahrukh Pathan versus. State